Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD LIAQAT versus STATE

The grant of Section 497 (2) Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Section 392 Dacoity Guarantee, Fingerprint Bureau's Further Investigative Report clearly reveals that the fingerprints and palm prints of the accused were covered by fingerprints and palm marks. Reasonable suspicion, after the incident, was born about the suspect's involvement in the commission of the alleged crime. Innovative techniques usually lead to a correct conclusion and as far as possible in the investigation of criminal cases. Should be resorted to. In this case no identification parade was held, jewelery could be identified in the police station, clearly further investigation was needed against the accused and in the inquiry the accused was admitted on bail.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• BASHIRAN BIBI v. PUNJAB COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION 2012 CLD 429
• ARSHAD PETER v. Mst. SHUMAILA 2012 PLD 430
• SHAHID IQBAL v. State 2012 MLD 430
• UMAR AFZAL v. SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.2, RAWALPINDI 2012 PLD 433
• WAHEED MURAD alias SHEIKHA v. State 2012 PCrLJ 437
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR v. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF 2012 MLD 439
• AMIR AFTAB HUSSAIN v. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PUNJAB PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, RAWALPINDI 2012 PLD 440
• MUHAMMAD NADEEM v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BHAKKAR 2012 CLC 441

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

list of supreme court advocates from Ugoki lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes